HP brings OpenVMS to the SuperDome (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

HP brings OpenVMS to the SuperDome (ZDNet)

Posted May 7, 2004 21:20 UTC (Fri) by jmshh (guest, #8257) [Link]

Now that even Intel also supports AMD's 64-bit extensions, the question is about how much more life will be in Itanium than in Alpha?

Is it really a faster architecture early in its lifecycle, or just a dead end?

For Pentium the first is true, even when a DX4/100 often ran circles around a P100. For Itanium, only time will tell...

HP brings OpenVMS to the SuperDome (ZDNet)

Posted May 7, 2004 22:05 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

The P100 was pretty much faster than a DX4/100 at everything. You are
probably remembering the comparison of the first gen P60 and P66 with the
contemporaneous DX4/100 - the former was faster at floating point and
the latter for most of the desktop apps of the day (~1993).

This is a terrible mistake

Posted May 9, 2004 2:17 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

They should have ported MPE to Itanium instead of VMS!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. HP insiders will understand.

Bruce

This is a terrible mistake

Posted May 9, 2004 13:41 UTC (Sun) by vaxcluster (guest, #21475) [Link]

As we both know, VAX/VMS was a great technological achievement. This was squandered by the management, who wasted the opportunity, screwed the customers, and ignored the rise of the PC and also UNIX (snake oil!).

HP are being much more responsible, and providing an upgrade path for the users when many other suppliers would just say "tough luck, alpha is history".

I would be much more impressed if HP were more bold. They could perhaps provide an upgrade toolkit to allow VMS applications to run on Linux for instance. Technically not very difficult, and the users would love HP for it! If they could make Linux clustering as good as the VMS implementation is, I would be gobsmacked.

Go on HP, dazzle us!

This is a terrible mistake

Posted May 9, 2004 22:52 UTC (Sun) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

I would like the HP to burn, since they are too friendly to M$ and AFAI remember, the Compaq was pretty much a M$-only, unstandard, fragile, expensive trash. Getting in to the Compaq's BIOS setup was a huge effort, not to mention, it was difficult to find the documentation, that described it.

I do like the Dell's approach---commodities and for the customers. But, who knows, may be I'm mistaken about Dell? I certainly like, that the Dell's CEO stated, that if someone is boasting with a huge R&D budget, then (s)he is mostly boasting with reinventing the weel, since companies like to keep things in secret.